Skip type check on unused parameters
I may be late, but I got stuck with the other solutions and this one work all the time for me:
function ({}={}, {}={}, {}={}, onlyThis) { console.log(onlyThis); }
comparison
When using the _0
, _1
, ... solution, I faced difficulties with scooped function like:
function parent(_0, _1, _2) {
function child(_0, _1, _2) {
// TypeScript crying about shadowed variables
}
}
but with the empty object it work well:
function parent({}, {}, {}) {
function child({}, {}, {}) {
// :-)
}
}
Even if the parameters are typed like:
function parent({}: number, {}: string, {}: any) {
function child({}: number, {}: string, {}: any) {
// :-) x2
}
}
EDIT:
And as written here, setting a default value avoid error throwing if the given parameter is undefined
or null
.
function parent({}={}, {}={}, {}={}) {
function child({}={}, {}={}, {}={}) {
// :-)
}
}
I was having the same problem. Using say express and routing you would often only want the res parameter.
router.get('/', function (req, res) { res.end('Bye.'); });
Your idea of using _ works here, but I've also found doing this works too.
function (_1, _2, _3, onlyThis) { console.log(onlyThis); }
This seems better, as only doing '_' I think might make using lodash/underscore a bit confusing, and it also makes it obvious it's the 4th parameter your interested in.
Update: It's been a long time since I posted this answer, and in the comments I'm getting a few miss conceptions. So though I would clarify.
Using the underscore trick is still very useful in Typescript. Like I mentioned in my original answer say if you was using express and did app.get('/', (req, res) => {
you will get a warning 'req' is declared but its value is never read
, but if you do -> app.get('/', (_req, res) => {
the warning will go away. You should not get the error TS7006: Parameter 'req' implicitly has an 'any' type.
error anyway, as @types/express
should be implicitly typing this param anyway.
Update 2,. Please note the second answer here using
{}
for parameters, might look cool, but it's considerable slower, so personally I would be careful using inside tight loops.